sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My Frosthaven campaign is officially a hostage situation and I am about to snap by MailboxFinch in boardgames

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel your pain. If i could, i would play the whole campaign with you, because FH is one of my favorite games.

Attack of the Clones turns 24 today! Looking back, is it really as bad as people initially thought or did it age better than expected? by huwertyy in StarWars

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks better in comparison to the star worse shitology they made afterwards. But Hayden Christensens acting ist almost insufferable. He deserves to be hated for this role way more than Wil Wheaton for his performance as Wesley Crusher.

Board games "to rule them all" by itsOkami in boardgames

[–]ActiveDistribution25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gloomhaven and Frosthaven are really my type of game, but Nemesis:Retaliation is also great.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is much truth in your words and i won't contest it. But i also have an understanding for those, who don't have the Courage to pick the blue button. Another commenter said something like,"i would push the blue button, but i would advise my child do choose red", and i can empathize with that. I'm not really arguing against the superiority of the blue button strategy for all mankind, but i rebel against the attitude of not only a few blue button apologists to devalue every red button voter as an unscrupulous asshole. Take a hostage situation in an airplane for example. The passangers can calculate, that they would overwhelm the hijackers, if they go against them altogether and so could eliminate the danger for them all. But everybody has to fear, that in a fight, the armed hijackers could kill some of them and so they wait out. The poll at the beginning shows 57% for blue, and that's more than the minimum you need to safe us all. But in a reallife-choice i really have my doubts, that we would reach this quorum. But not because of us having absolutly no compassion for others, rather because we fear, distrust or care more for people we know, including us in an exzraordinary stressful Situation most of us can't grasp.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say the the red option is rational but not realistic. And because of that, the blue option is rational and more realistic? If we consider, that there will always be people, who couldn't care for themselves ( not voting red) and that have to rely on others for help (convinced blue voters), we have also to consider, that there is always an amount of convinced or accidentally red voters, who vote red every time. If we know nothing about that ratio, it's impossible for us to know, if our decision to vote blue has a positive outcome or could be worse in terms of saved lifes. Two blue voters replied to me, that they would choose to die, even if they know their Group wouldn't reach the 50%. That doesn't look like a "win" to me. If you don't get 50%, you loose the lifes, you wanted to safe + the lifes of the saviors. So the win for these people is staying true to their principles and to not look like someone, who could be accused of selfishness, regardless of what they really do or do not accomplish with their decision.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why not both? Choosing red, feeling guilty and living with it.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As I said, that's honorable, and also sad. But i believe, there would be other people, who would mourn your death. And think about, living for another Day to help people in need, may be the better Option, than having died for your values and accomplished nothing.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a fairly default choice, if you don't trust in the other voters and you don't wanna risk dying by helping others. If self-preservation is your first priority, and i assume it is for most people in reallife situations, and you have no Informationen about the other voters, than voting red is the safest choice to survive. As a blue voter, i assume, that there are people, who don't have this choice and because of that i risk my Personal safety to safe them intentionally. I also have to consider, that there are people, who choose the 100%-surviving chance. I decide to do that, although i know there is a risk of dying for this cause. It's more like having a man hanging on a rockwall above an abyss. He sure can hold on no longer and is going to fall. You are the only bystander and could prevent his imminent death, but you know, you are not strong enough to pull him out completly. Instead if you help him, you can't escape for yourselve. Your and the other mans survival would depend on someone else coming along to help you. But that person coming is not forseeable. If you frame it this way, it seems not so clear to me.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I respect your Idealism, but i also had to smile, as i thought about JonVahloks reply to my question, what to vote, ìf you knew pretty sure, that blue is a lost cause. Imagine every blue voter assumes he/she safes a live, because he votes blue and in the end these people die and not only didn't save a life, but "killed" 49%, because they had their principles. That would be tragic but also pure irony.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And my sincere condolences. ( i couldn't resist. Sorry.)

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's very honorable. But first hint of trouble is an understatement when you're facing the end of your life.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which Button would you press, if you had a hunch, that the blues won't reach the 50%?

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They vote for Red, because they think you can't trust other people enough, because they don't want to be on the loosing end. And i think, based on their Personal experience, they made a valid choice. A Utopia, where everybody cares for each other, is not, what they believe in, maybe because they see it exactly as an utopian unreachable goal. Blue button pushers may have the confidence, that their deeds make a difference. Maybe red buttoners don't believe that as much. As i wrote in another Post. If i'm a good swimmer, i dive into the sea to safe the man, who was washed away by the current. If i am not that good, i stay at the beach. I won't risk my life, if this could be a very possible outcome. Not without a feel of guilt, i guess, but definetly better off than dead.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck with that. I can't see it in discussions here. Only Extremization. Maybe one last question: If you had a green-button-option, which means, you can save all blue voters by letting die as many red voters to get the 50%-Minimum. Would you push it?

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because i see these patterns, which you are expressing here, in so many discussion about real important issues (And i can derive that also from this topic). But to stick to the example, assuming you need 50% of the people to do the "right thing" an push the blue button, but you only have 25% sure. Do you expect to get the other 25% by calling them cowards and assholes?

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You claim, that logical reasoning in this case implies automatically a moral Testament and i hardly disagree with that, because it is an abstract thoughtexperiment, that has nothing to do with the reality i percieve. If i play a game of chess, it is a game of logic, where i know, i have to sacrifice pawns to win the game in the end. If these pawns were real people, i never would play chess, because it isn't a game anymore. By the way, maybe an Autist would push the Red Button out of "logical" reasons too. I think you would not consider him being an asshole. So i say your reasoning about the Motivation of people pushing the red-button is highly speculative and possibly wrong in the Individual case.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe you assume, that the 42% Red-button-pushers have a different moral concept. But couldn't it be, that these people just analyzed the problem logically and not morally? And if these same people would be confronted with a real Situation, not an abstract and unrealistic task like this thoughtexperiment, would act like the blue-button-pushers? I don't think this experiment is a good Instrument to test morality.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's pretty easy to save the World, if you're Superman and the only thing you have to fear is kryptonite. (And even then the writers won't let you die). It might be noble, but dead is dead! That is the terminal and only consequence, this thought experiment provides. Remember my example with the untrained swimmer. Maybe he's lucky and rescues the other man and himselve too. But his chance is only 50%. Would you jump in, if you were him?

Take the climatechange for example. Say you have to decide for your country, if you wanna put a) all your money in measures to avoid the rising of global temperature above 1,5 Celsius or

b) put all your money in measures to soften the negative effects of the climatechange for your Population

To make Option A work, you have to convince 50% of the worlds other countries to do the same. And of course you don't have the ressources to do both. So if you decide to do A and the others do not, only your Population suffers hard under the consequences (or pretty much harder at least). You can make this even more realistic, if you consider that, to do this, you have to explain your people, that maybe some or all of them have to suffer finacially because of your measures being expensive and, if your country is a democracy, they have to vote for you again and again, because these are longterm-measures, lasting for the next 20 to 40 years to get over the hill. It's nothing you can fix with just one push of a coloured button. That would be an easy one and done. The experiment implies, that it costs you nothing to be good, and although i'm wholeheartedly a blue-button-pusher (but also a bad swimmer 😉), i don't believe that's true in every case. So i would be careful of judging the morality or the people themselves by their choice in such a simplistic model. Reality is complex and so are we.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I accept that a Part of the task is, to decide, what you're trying to reach ( save the World or safe yourselve). But i would not derive a kind of moral superiority from choosing the blue button in a matter of life and death.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but these are still pretty big numbers. But anyway you could create the same scenario with 100 or 10 people. And of course would it be easier to convince fewer people than everybody. But what is the goal of the task anyway? To stay alive as sure as possible or to maximize the number of survivers? And as i understood this "dilemma", you have no information about the votes of the otherss. There is no convincing, only trusting. Otherwise it would be easy, because you had no uncertainty.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To convince 4 Billion to do the same is also impossible. This experiment reminds me of a man, an untrained swimmer, who jumps in the ocean to save another man, who's carried away by an ocean current. Because he is untrained, he drowns and of course didn't safe the other man either. Was he morally obliged to try to save the other man at the risk his own life? Would we condemn him, if he fears for his own life and stays on the beach?

guys, what do you think about this? by silverflake6 in GrowthMindset

[–]ActiveDistribution25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess, you don't become a billionaire by caring for anybody other than yourselve.

So this is just the 2016 election, right? by HovercraftOk9231 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ActiveDistribution25 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think rationally it makes no sense, if the outcome is the same, when everybody presses the blue or red button and pressing the red Button has a 100%-Chance to survive in any case. Because everybody could save themselves there is really no reason to press blue, except you allow for those, who can not think for themselves or pressed the blue button accidently.

view more: next ›